Red Diamond Threads

[Grisu]

This, and the message of Ajidica, are about one of the aspect of the point that have been several times mentioned in this thread and, for now, constantly avoided by the mod : how the moderation infract the appearance but not the content, leading to actually more disruptive behaviours.

We do very much infract the content of a post if it's seen to be against the rules. Trust me, we're not taking this lightly, but you have to see that it's very difficult to determine exactly when the content of a post is over the line. When is it a valid opinion that you just happen to disagree strongly on, and when is it a disruptive post? This becomes even more difficult once you have to actually infract people for it, as I had to realize when I became a mod just 2 months ago.

When people ask for MORE moderation, it's usually about THIS kind of moderation - infracting people who actually disrupt the discussion, because the content of their message is bad (not respecting the OP's rules or destroying the conversation through bad faith/stupidity).
It's NOT about making the moderation even tighter, but making it focus on better targets.

can you give me (either by PM or by reporting a post) an example of such a post that in your opinion needs more moderation, so that I can get a idea exactly what kind of post you're referring to? (doesn't have to be right now, just when you stumble over such a post for the next time).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would say that straw man arguments should be moderated.

Cool. Half my question answered. How about the "So you think it's fine that people try to disrupt debates by asking these sort of leading questions and justifying it with "it was only a question"?".

If you can find a civil way to admonish such a tactic in public, that might be just fine too. In the past most of those responses are not very civil though.

Does that also mean that sarcasm towards such posts is off-limits? Clearly not civil.

 

[choxorn]

Hmmm... I don't recall actually writing anything of the sort.

We began with "opt in if you want" as the default even though the intent was to migrate all discussion to RD in the end.

You may not have intended that by saying this, but that was how we interpreted it.

 

[Mise]

Point noted.

Hmmm... I don't recall actually writing anything of the sort.


And as I said in the OP, we will not force all discussion threads to be RD at the start. We began with "opt in if you want" as the default even though the intent was to migrate all discussion to RD in the end. Clearly it is out for discussion.

If you want to complain about moderators forcing your threads to be RD, then please wait until we actually do so. Thanks.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read the thread and respond to the feedback. I'm heartened to see that you've at least paid attention to our objections to your plan to force heavier moderation on all serious threads.

I don't have much else to say, except to respond to your last point:

If you want to complain about moderators forcing your threads to be RD, then please wait until we actually do so. Thanks.

To use an analogy, I don't see why I should wait to become the victim of an unjust law before I have the right to complain about that law. If you made a thread that said, "soon", nobody will be allowed to use smileys on weekends, I wouldn't wait until I got infracted before I started complaining about it. I mean, you said that you were going to do something; I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect you to do it, and to respond in light of your stated intentions.

The idea, which has been repeated by a few mods now, that we should all just shut up and wait and see whether you will actually do what you said you would do is absurd. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; if we didn't complain about it, you wouldn't know how much we disliked it, and you would be more likely to do it. So no, I'm not going to wait until you force heavier moderation onto my threads before I complain about your stated plan to force heavier moderation onto my threads.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The idea, which has been repeated by a few mods now, that we should all just shut up and wait and see whether you will actually do what you said you would do is absurd. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; if we didn't complain about it, you wouldn't know how much we disliked it, and you would be more likely to do it. So no, I'm not going to wait until you force heavier moderation onto my threads before I complain about your stated plan to force heavier moderation onto my threads.

That's why I said we'll be running a 2nd OT survey some time after we get the new measures in, adjust for practicality and other issues and then you can feedback to us. This is not the one and only time we'll be asking for feedback on this.

If most people still don't like it, we can can it then.

 

[SuperJay]

For what little it's worth, some distilled short-form thoughts:

- The admins and mods are interested in continuing to advance OT. That's a good thing. (BirdJag, despite all the storm and fury in various responses, we really do appreciate your efforts.)

- It's a sound idea. I'm willing to wait and see how this pans out before passing judgement, though I do question how likely this is to be widely adopted by members. The RD is a valuable tool to have in the toolbox (and I appreciate having the option if need be), but if it doesn't get widely used, it doesn't help address the issues it's intended to.

- As long as RD is opt-in, I don't see all the fuss about mods cracking down on fun discussion and snuffing out our passion and all that. Maybe I'm high, but doesn't it seem like clearly labeling some threads with "SRS BIZ RITE HEAR" might help the mods relax a bit on the more casual threads?

- I appreciate the approach here - the willingness to experiment, try something new, and especially the mods' attention to member feedback.

- Some others have raised the point that this does little to address other problems (such as uninformed post content from members that spam their opinions in every other discussion thread), and I agree with those concerns, but I don't think this is an attempt at a panacea. Other measures can be taken to address those issues; this is one measure to address a different problem.

 

[BvBPL]

I would say that straw man arguments should be moderated. If you can find a civil way to admonish such a tactic in public, that might be just fine too. In the past most of those responses are not very civil though.

I do not like the idea of moderators, in their official capacity, reviewing the arguments of others for logical fallacies. CFC is not a debating society, and I doubt many people would want it to turn into one.

 

[Mise]

That's why I said we'll be running a 2nd OT survey some time after we get the new measures in, adjust for practicality and other issues and then you can feedback to us. This is not the one and only time we'll be asking for feedback on this.

If most people still don't like it, we can can it then.

Well, that's good. I just don't see why it needs to be compulsory in the first place. Apologies if someone has already, but could someone explain to me what benefit making it compulsory brings over making it opt-in?

 

[aelf]

Small request: When a mod makes a thread an RD thread, could he/she put a mod tag that says "THIS THREAD IS NOW DIAMONDS"?

 

[Takhisis]

Also, if such a thing (a thread being forced into RD status) happens, then could the OP request that it be demoted to normalcy?

 

[Leoreth]

I do not like the idea of moderators, in their official capacity, reviewing the arguments of others for logical fallacies. CFC is not a debating society, and I doubt many people would want it to turn into one.

Depending on the way the straw man is constructed, one could very well argue that a straw man fails to respond to the actual topic, which is a case in which the moderators should intervene.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I made my first red diamond thread which is in A&E. Which I was afraid might fall apart. But go look. I hope it works now.

Question: Are puns allowed in RD threads? As long as the rest of the post is serious?

I'm also worried this may takeaway time from moderating non-RD thread. Anything to say about that?

 

[LucyDuke]

We have 14 OT mods. They'll manage.

Also, serious does not mean dull and lifeless. Puns are not disruptive to discussion, so they should be fine.

 

[Moss]

I made my first red diamond thread which is in A&E. Which I was afraid might fall apart. But go look. I hope it works now.

Question: Are puns allowed in RD threads? As long as the rest of the post is serious?

I'm also worried this may takeaway time from moderating non-RD thread. Anything to say about that?

aimee, RD threads are only an experiment for OT.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

^ So what? She's offering a thread for testing purposes, and you should gratefully take her up on it. Gosh knows, some A&E threads suffer from the same problems that OT threads do, so why not give it a whirl?

 

[Moss]

^ So what? She's offering a thread for testing purposes, and you should gratefully take her up on it. Gosh knows, some A&E threads suffer from the same problems that OT threads do, so why not give it a whirl?

For now, the RD label is only for OT. If someone uses it in another forum, it really has no meaning. It will be just like starting any other thread. Moderators won't be moderating those threads like they will be in OT. Also, the RD label was specifically designed for RD threads, so it is confusing to use it outside of OT where RD threads haven't been mentioned or discussed.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I thought it was throughout the colloeseum.

 

[Moss]

I thought it was throughout the colloeseum.

The very first sentence in BJ's post (after the greeting) says,

This thread is to announce a change in how we handle discussion threads in the Off Topic forum.

If it works in OT we may try it in other forums, but for now, it should just stay in OT.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So move the thread to OT and test it there. As for people not understanding... please. I seriously doubt that there are any A&E posters who do not also post in OT.

 

[Moss]

So move the thread to OT and test it there. As for people not understanding... please. I seriously doubt that there are any A&E posters who do not also post in OT.

If you look at the thread, you will see that the content for that thread is not allowed in OT due to a specific rule. Also, I'm not sure how A&E posters reading OT is really relevant. A&E isn't the only other forum on CFC. We have to draw the line somewhere with RD threads, and we have decided only to do it in OT. If you would like to discuss this further, PM one of the mods. I'm not taking this thread any more off-topic. Thanks.